Ah dcb and MrCyclist, you never fail to post exactly as I have predicted

Wow, Robin, I bow to your vast intellect. You actually predicted that I would answer the question that was asked? how on earth do you do it?

RobinXe wrote:

MrCyclist, are you suggesting that since cyclists contribute so little to the fatality statistics (by which I imply no accession to your assertion that they do) that they should continue to be allowed to break all the rules of the road that they already do? No harm done, right?

As usual, you have attempted to subvert the argument, suggesting that I said something that I didn't and cunningly disguising it as a question. Please read my message again properly if you want to discuss it.

_________________"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

Assuming the oft-quoted figure of an average car load factor of 1.6, this makes the mileage ratio about 54:1. Therefore 4 plays 433 suggests that pedal cycles are about half as likely to cause a pedestrian fatality, per mile travelled, than cars. Twice as good, yes, but still broadly in the same ballpark.

No idea about mileage on motorways or similar roads.

Yes, it seems hard to find that figure, but a reasonable assumption is that urban miles versus motorway and rural miles will be less than 50% (probably a lot less, but lets go with it), so your "half as likely" becomes a quarter as likely.

So now that is dispensed with, I should point out that this point is, anyway, irrelevant when considering the costs versus benefits of introducing cycle registration; it is the absolute values that matter for that purpose.

And yes, Malcolm, given limited resources it is indeed ALL about costs versus benefits. (BTW, there is no such thing as a "cost benefit"; cost/benefit analysis looks at costs versus benefits.) You may argue about what the benefits actually are, but the decision should be based on whether the benefits outweigh the costs.

_________________"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

I should mention that I agree with the view that cyclists, like all road users, should be accountable for their actions; as indeed they are. I also get pissed-off when I see road users jumping red lights, or riding/driving on the kerbs, etc. I get particularly pissed off when a scrote on a BSO, whom I have overtaken earlier, rides down the kerb to pass the traffic queue, then dives onto the road in front of me to go through the red light that I am waiting at. I don't get angry, because cycling seems to dissipate the anger, but I do wish there were a policeman there when you want one.

What I disagree with is the idea that it would be a good use of my taxes to introduce a huge cyclist registration scheme that will probably make very little difference to anything.

I do believe that, like most European countries, we should have a system of presumed liability in which, under civil law, the heavier vehicle is presumed liable unless they can prove that the lighter vehicle/pedestrian was at fault. That would do more to change attitudes than anything in my opinion.

_________________"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

I do believe that, like most European countries, we should have a system of presumed liability in which, under civil law, the heavier vehicle is presumed liable unless they can prove that the lighter vehicle/pedestrian was at fault. That would do more to change attitudes than anything in my opinion.

Unlike most European countries, we try to have fair and just laws here which do not prejudge fault.

The attitudes which would change would be those of cyclists who would really think (with some justification) that they could then get away with anything.

BTW, this thread is about accountability not cost. There is such a thing as "cost benefit". This would be the definition of a price reduction.

_________________Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

No, this topic is about accountability. This particular thread of the discussion, which you yourself started, is about compulsory registration for cyclists, and cost is crucial issue in discussing such a proposal.

_________________"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

As I see this: there currently aren’t enough cyclists to warrant a full-on registration and identification marking scheme.However, those who call for draconian enforcement of driver technical infringements should also be calling for compulsory training, licensing, egistration and identification for cyclists (and their use of helmets), as well as jaywalking laws for pedestrians, otherwise they can be rightly labelled as biased. "If it saves a life... " and all that.

This would be more relevant if cycling becomes more popular; the risk per unit distance travelled is not significantly different between cyclists and drivers.

Right now, making the cycling proficiency test mandatory is a step in the right direction, IMO.

No, this topic is about accountability. This particular thread of the discussion, which you yourself started, is about compulsory registration for cyclists, and cost is crucial issue in discussing such a proposal.

Accountability for cyclists is only achievable by registration and thus there is only one topic, thread (call it what you like). Cost was first mentioned by Robin as a possible factor against registration. It is only your opinion that cost is "crucial" and I reject this. Cyclists could be charged a registration fee which completely recovers all costs involved.

_________________Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

So how exactly would making someone other than the cyclist automatically liable improve the cyclist's attitude?

Well, first a small correction: "automatically liable" would be what is called "strict liability", which is not what I proposed. Presumed liability means that the heavier vehicle is presumed liable unless they can prove fault on the part of the other party.

However, to answer your question. Referring back to your original post that started this topic, it would mean that in collisions between cyclists and pedestrians, the cyclist would be presumed liable unless they could prove that the pedestrian was at fault. As things currently stand, the pedestrian would have to prove that the cyclist was at fault in order to claim redress which, given the horrific experiences you described, seems somewhat unfair.

_________________"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

And lack of registration of shoppers is the reason why nobody ever gets prosecuted for shoplifting? You missed the point.

malcolmw wrote:

So, you would be happy for car drivers not to show registration marks in future as they would, by your reckoning, still be easily held to account for their actions.

No. Anyone who is to be allowed to take 1.5 tonnes of powerful, high speed machinery into a public place and use it there should have compulsory training and be registered to demonstrate their competence in the use of that machinery. It really is a no-brainer!

_________________"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

No. Anyone who is to be allowed to take 1.5 tonnes of powerful, high speed machinery into a public place and use it there should have compulsory training and be registered to demonstrate their competence in the use of that machinery. It really is a no-brainer!

Right. It's about keeping things in proportion. Here's an illustration - the third-party insurance cover that's included with my CTC membership is estimated to cost about £4 per year. How does that compare with typical values to insure a car? What does that suggest about the relative risk to others of my actions on the bike and in the car?

Sorry if I have offended any Safespeeders' prejudices by informing you that I have insurance cover when I cycle. I'd pay "road tax" too, except they just give me funny looks in the post office when I go to buy my disk.

However, to answer your question. Referring back to your original post that started this topic, it would mean that in collisions between cyclists and pedestrians, the cyclist would be presumed liable unless they could prove that the pedestrian was at fault. As things currently stand, the pedestrian would have to prove that the cyclist was at fault in order to claim redress which, given the horrific experiences you described, seems somewhat unfair.

Do you not see that this is rather putting the cart before the horse? How is the cyclist identified, to be presumed liable? All this gives us is a situation where one user-group may get the impression that they need not take such great care, since the things that are bigger than them are easily identifiable and presumed at fault by default, and the things that are smaller than them have no means of identifying them in order to hold them to account. I really cannot see how this would combat antisocial cycling practices.

How about if, rather than focussing on size or speed as a metric of blame, we presume that the road-user with the lesser level of training and testing is at fault, unless proven otherwise?

So, as predicted, much poo-pooing, does anyone have anything constructive to contribute on how we could avoid incidents like those mentioned and the millions of others that occur?

No Robin I don't know how to change the attitudes of anti-social people, be they cyclists or not. The problems are deeply entrenched in the modern concept of Society which, for many people, is still that there is no such thing and that personal satisfaction is ones primary aim and justification for ones actions.

I do know that registration of cyclists or pedestrians or dog-owners would, whilst costing as lot of money, not significantly improve their behaviour. Car drivers are registered but that does not prevent thousands of incidents of anti social behaviour by them when they are in their cars.

How do think the incidents that you describe in your initial post would have been different if the perpetrators were registered. You would have got his ID and reported him to the police. Who would, at best, have said "No one hurt? No property damaged? Thank you sir, we will log the incident." That is certainly my experience of reporting similar behaviour by a motorist to the police.

_________________When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum